Facebook Censors Our Accurate Story On Covid

[George K]

https://public.substack.com/p/facebook-censors-our-accurate-story

Yesterday, we discovered that the company fact-checked, labeled, and limited the visibility of our article “Covid Vaccine mRNA In Breast Milk Shows CDC Lied About Safety.”

Public’s article was accurate. A new study in the Lancet demonstrated that there were trace amounts of vaccine mRNA in breast milk and that vaccine mRNA does not stay in the injection site.

Facebook did not respond to our request for comment.

This is not a small matter. The CDC had repeatedly assured pregnant and breastfeeding women that it was safe to get vaccinated despite the fact that they had been excluded from the original vaccine trials.

Is the presence of the vaccine in breast milk a big deal? Is it dangerous?

I don't know.

But the fact that it IS there should not have been censored by Meta.

[kluurs]

"Lied" is probably the word that generated the algorithm to murder off their post. SHOCK!!! On Tik Tok, there's a whole vocabulary that has developed to get posts past the algorithms. One doesn't say "kill" - rather one will reference that someone was "unalived" just as "rape" is referenced as the woman was "graped".

If they wanted their post to be read, they likely only needed to not use the word "lie" and if their IQ reached triple digits, they would know that - but chose to post their click-bait outrage the way they did - and then be more OUTRAGED that their freedom of speech was suppressed.

[Jolly]

Why can't one use the actual word? Words mean things. Specific things.

Algorithm be damned.

[Mik]

Humans cannot vet that much data coming across. It has to be an algorithm. I do believe it should not make the decisions based on single key words. But they probably should rephrase the headline if they want to get through.

Actually, right now I'm writing a proposal to Epic on that very subject for FHx data.

[Axtremus]

The Lancet study shows that there is trace amount of the vaccine mRNA in breast milk, presumably the study takes no position on whether that is a "safety" issue (otherwise it would have been bigger news and Public would have cited that part).

Given the above, the Lancet study does not support that claim that the CDC "lied about safety" even if the CDC "had repeatedly assured pregnant and breastfeeding women that it was safe to get vaccinated."

But the fact that it IS there should not have been censored by Meta.

1. Had Public's claim been limited to stating that trace amounts of mRNA is there in breast milk, that would have been an accurate restatement of the Lancet study's finding; but Public went outside of accurately restating the study's finding and went into the territory of accusing a public health agency of "lying" about "safety" -- this is not supported by the Lancet study. This went beyond citing a study and got into sensationalism and scare mongering. For that, I have to sympathy for Public's article being limited by Meta/Facebook. (Show me that the Lancet study says that the trace amount of mRNA in breast milk is unsafe and I am ready to change my mind on this.)

2. Facebook/Meta is a private platform/enterprise. If you don't like Facebook/Meta, go post your stuff somewhere else (like, say, Substack). Facebook/Meta owes Public no duty to carry or promote any of Public's posts or articles.